2005 Cooperstown Class

[Crash Course]

In about a month from now we will know who the Baseball Writers' Association of America want to put next in Cooperstown - - and two month after that we will know who the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee will want to add as well.

If the SOTS Weblog had a vote, here is who we would select off each ballot:

BERT BLYLEVEN and WADE BOGGS are at the top of the list. Bert should have been in years ago and the 3,000 hits (and OBA marks) do it for Boggs.

RICH GOSSAGE gets a vote. He was the A-#1 closer in his time - and he had the respect of all that played with him and had to face him.

RON SANTO gets a vote too. He is in the list of Top 10 3B of all-time for most - or just knocking on the door. That should be good enough for Cooperstown.

Because it's a Hall of "Fame," I'll vote for ROGER MARIS as well. He broke the glory baseball record that had stood for a long time - and then his record stood for just as long - - and would probably still be standing if not for performance enhancing drugs.

Lastly, TOMMY JOHN and JIM KAAT get votes - because I think anyone who logs over 4,500 IP in a big league career deserves to be in a Hall of Fame.

That's it - just those seven.

No Gil Hodges. No Jim Rice. No Andre Dawson. No Ryne Sandberg.

I'm sort of on the fence with Minnie Minoso and Bruce Sutter - but, I do believe in the rule of "if you have to think about it, he's probably not a Cooperstown HOFer."

Now, just watch, only two guys will be elected in this year - - it could happen.

[Jim Rice]

My votes would go to:

Boggs - Even though he's a near-certainty to show up at the induction ceremony with a trophy wife and nugget jewlery.

Sandberg - One of the top dozen second basemen ever. Put him in Frankie Frisch's or Tony Lazzeri's hitting context and the voters wouldn't think twice about electing him.

Blyleven - Overdue.

Gossage - For my money, still the best pure reliever ever.

Trammell - To me, he was a better selection than Ozzie Smith a few years ago because he was a better overall player. Both belong, but Trammell belongs more.

Dawson - Only because about half of the current right field class is clearly worse than him. If not for that, then proably not.

Dave Parker - Only because of the Dawson rationale. Throw out about 8 current right field HOFers and Parker wouldn't get my vote. He might not anyway because of all the blow.

Jim Rice - Not one of the top five left fielders ever, obviously, and not as qualified as a few guys who still aren't eligible (Bonds, Henderson, Raines),but as good or better than about a dozen of the 18 current left fielders in the Hall. Put him in Goose Goslin's environment, or Joe Medwick's, or Fred Clarke's, or Jesse Burkett's, or Jim O'Rourke's, or Joe Kelley's, or even Al Simmons' and you'll see little difference. Better than both Chick Hafey and Ralph Kiner because he was vastly more durable than either. In Heinie Manush's context, Rice dwarfs him. Well within comparison range of Billy Williams. A much better overall player than Lou Brock, as both a hitter and defender, but that's hidden by Brock's steals and longevity.

That's it, thought if I were a Veteran's Committe guy, I would also vote for Ron Santo. Until he's elected any other VC selection is a joke.

No to both John and Kaat. If either had stopped pitching when they stopped being effective, each would be borderline at best.

John thru 1982: 237-171, 3709 IP, 3.05 ERA
Kaat thru 1976: 246-196, 3803 IP, 3.28 ERA

I could see them having a case with those stat lines, based upon the logic that there are plenty of pitchers already in the Hall who are worse. But each padded their totals with about six years of mediocre-to-bad pitching.

John after 1982: 51-60, 1001 IP, 4.43 ERA
Kaat after 1976: 36-36, 663 IP, 4.30 ERA

The bad counts along with the good, I'm afraid, I don't see why that should be rewarded. Like Luis Tiant, I believe their cases would be better if they had called it a career sooner.

And sorry Bruce Sutter fans, but your guy's accomplishments are indistinguishable from Dan Quisenberry's, and he got just 18 votes. If he can't get in, your guy can't either.

[Crash Course]

As long as Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker are not in, I cannot elect Sandberg.

The 300/300 thing is interesting on Dawson. But, if a Dwight Evans type is not in, I cannot put him in yet - or Parker.

The whole Rice/Roy White/Bill James thing just killed any chance for Rice in my mind.

[Jim Rice]

Let me deconstruct James' entire Roy White/Jim Rice thing for you, because it's full of holes.

First, from the Willie Davis entry of the same book, let's translate the two players' stat line to a neutral-park, 750-runs per team context to see if James' argument holds up.

Translated White:1881 G, 2009 H, 568 XBH, .293/.385/.436/.821
Translated Rice: 2089 G, 2424 H, 823 XBH, .296/.349/.498/.847

Umm, other than OBP, where does this math support the conclusion that White is better than Rice? And remember, THIS IS JAMES' MATH. There's little there to support the view that White was a better hitter. More patient, yes, but better overall? I don't see it.

Next, let's look at a more complete set of measurements, to make sure this translation isn't fooling us. Each player played 14 full years, so let's list those out next to each other.

OPS+ by Season, in descending order, "winner" in bold
Rice - 158, 154, 148, 141, 137, 131, 128, 123, 123, 121, 117, 112, 102, 101
White - 149, 142, 135, 133, 130, 130, 128, 123, 111, 109, 101, 91, 74, 59

Fourteen season-by-season comparisons yields Rice as the the better hitter in twelve of them, with two ties and zero in favor of White. These are all park-adjusted figures from baseball-reference.com. Btu let's not stop there. Let's let the Baseball Prospectus guys chime in too, with their WARP3 stat.

WARP3 by season, in descending order, "winner" in bold
Rice - 10.6, 9.3, 9.2, 8.4, 7.5, 7.0, 6.9, 6.1, 5.4, 5.1, 4.7, 4.0, 2.9, 2.7
White - 9.7, 9.0, 9.0, 8.6, 8.0, 7.3, 6.5, 6.0, 5.5, 5.3, 2.8, 1.8, 0.4, -0.2

Another fourteen seasons, this time with 9 favoring Rice and 5 favoring White.

And, finally, the coup de grace, let's do the same thing with Win Shares, James' pet stat.

Win Shares by season, in descending order, "winner" in bold
Rice - 36, 28, 28, 26, 24, 21, 20, 17, 17, 16, 15, 14, 9, 8
White - 34, 29, 29, 26, 26, 22, 21, 19, 17, 15, 11, 7, 4, 2

A tie, six seasons for Rice, six for White, and two ties, though it should be noted that where White is better than Rice, it is by a slim margin - in the six years he wins, they are by a total of 8 Win Shares. Rice, on the other hand, win his six years by a margin of of 25 Win Shares. (And, oh by the way, since Rice's 1981 season was strike shortened, and Win Shares is a counting stat, his WS total of 15 that year projects out to 23, which would have shifted all of these numbers and given Rice a tally of eight seasons "won", compared to four for White and two ties.) Again, I don't see how any of this leads to the conclusion that Rice was worse than White. Was White better than his raw numbers? Yes, he was, but not by enough to close the gap between him and Rice.

And while James makes mention of several things about Rice that imply that his numbers are Fenway-inflated (which is true) he makes no mention of the fact that the run-scoring era he played in nearly cancels that out completely. Using James' own math as cited above, Rice's neutral-context stats were 377 HR, 1422 RBI, .296/.349/.498/.847, which barely differs from his real-life totals of 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .298/.352/.502/.854.

He goes on to state flatly that while Rice was a better defensive player than he is given credit for, "White was clearly better". And yet, within months of publishing that tidbit, he published "Win Shares", in which he graded Rice as a C+ defender and White as a C. James' entire story just doesn't add up.

I know there are perfectly valid reasons to withhold a vote for Jim Rice for the Hall of Fame, Bill James' hatchet job on him isn't one of them.

[KCBOOMER]

I would go for Blyleven, Boggs, Trammell, and Sandberg amongst the BBWAA contingent. Boggs and maybe Sandberg will be elected.

For the VC choices I would go for Santo and Minoso. The VC will elect no one so it's a moot point who you go for hear.

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

And while James makes mention of several things about Rice that imply that his numbers are Fenway-inflated (which is true) he makes no mention of the fact that the run-scoring era he played in nearly cancels that out completely.

The thing that always stood out to me was Rice's 1984 season. To the layman, you see: 28 HRs and 122 RBI (and, remember, this was not the Long Ball Era) and you say "Wow!" But, in terms of sabermetrics, they tell us that Rice's 1984 season was one of the worst ever by a "slugger" with 700+ PA.

That year, he had -8 RCAA, and an OWP of .453. That's bad. That was pretty much the end for Rice, at age 31. He did rebound for a great 1986. But, basically, his good years ended at age 30. And, it's hard to make it to the HOF that way.

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

The thing that always stood out to me was Rice's 1984 season. To the layman, you see: 28 HRs and 122 RBI (and, remember, this was not the Long Ball Era) and you say "Wow!" But, in terms of sabermetrics, they tell us that Rice's 1984 season was one of the worst ever by a "slugger" with 700+ PA.

That year, he had -8 RCAA, and an OWP of .453. That's bad. That was pretty much the end for Rice, at age 31. He did rebound for a great 1986. But, basically, his good years ended at age 30. And, it's hard to make it to the HOF that way.

I personally believe that his overall performance for his first dozen years is enough to elect him, but I wouldn't dispute anyone who makes the kind of longevity argument you make above. It's perfectly valid. The Bill James version of the "facts" is not.

[Crash Course]

FWIW, I heard Gossage interviewed today after the vote was released and he said "if Jim Rice isn't a Hall of Famer, then nobody is." If I'm Rice, and I hear that, it means perhaps more to me than a HOF nod - - - hearing something like that, about yourself, from a peer and one of the game's greats.